Hm, I wonder if we should have made the forks use a fork "name" instead of a
number. It sure would be nicer to have files name 12345.fsm instead of another
opaque number.
The other reason I thought of this is that if EDB or anyone else uses forks
for a private purpose then it would avoid the whole issue of conflicts. The
best option right now would be to set aside a range of values for private
purposes.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's RemoteDBA services!